The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1887-02-11
L he h az Jll j.,

"A COTIcSpUuucub CNu"fT UE"'
Hemdn makes the following remarks Oh
this disease which is beginning t. ex-
cite good deal of interest IN this
neighborhood, and the editor Of that
paper quotes other weighty auth rity
against the correspondent ;, opinions:
EDS. COUNTRY GENTLEMAN In
your issue of Dec. 10th, p 95l, l find
the following "settler" in reference to
incubation for contagious plenro-pneu.
mona; An inoculated herd is an m
fected herd and should be kept isolat-
cd as such unit every animal issiaugh-
tered. 1t is not safe to allow them ere,'
to associate with other cattle" This is
a summary way of disposing of an i'm
portant question, but it is correct?
If the writer is correct why is it that
in France incubation for this disease
is made compulsory by law and is prac-
tlced by the government officers? If il
is correct, why is it that the infected
animals near Chicago have been prac
ticing it for several years without any
spread Of the disease? If it is correct,
why is it that dairymen in ani around
Baltimore practice it in spite of the
State officials. and do not spread the
disease? If it is correct why is it that
in those States which practice it, not
single properly inoculated animal has
ever had the disease, and why is it that
ia such States there is no second out
brenk, after release from quarantine,
from the innculated animals
After repeated attempts to follow up
the statement gu tel, and which has
appeared in other directions, fail to
fin'l any ground for the assertions be
you. he statement that Prof. of
En- Lind says So; and II would seem as
ii this professor lad laid down the die
tum for all Of our veterinary surgeons
who find it more convenient to adopt
notion than to carefully investigate.
But Grant it that this notion is correct
i'll En land, does it necessarily follow
that it is correct here? Those who have
given ta- matter ctretul investigation
know that the disease, although the
same in its general nature is governed
by somewhat different rules; it is not so
vim ent in its outbreaks here and is
not so violent or rapid in its action with
u; II is not nearly So easily transmissi
Die by intermediate objects (if English
standard authors are 70 be taken as
authorities) here as there. 1t is found
in miider form, and if not checked
by official or other action, spreads with
much less rapidity, and often seems to
exhaust itself without any violent or
extended spread, it is true that We can
recognize enough of its peculiarties to
enable US to class it as the same disease,
but, as before stated, we find that it is
governed by different rules.
Why is it that in the matter of in.
oculation, this disease should be the
only exception (save one) where the
operation c.rries danger with it? We
may lnoculate for small ox, hydropho
bia, and similar diseases, and there is
no continuance of danger. Is it not
possible that we may have accepted the
opinions of others too quickly? We
find in every case which we have inves-
tigated that the assertion that inoculat-
ed animals are permanently dangerous,
is based upon the assertion of some one
of three accepted authorities in Europe;
we certainly have had incubation thor
oughly tested in thus country, and need
not go to Europe for results; in Europe
the question is very tar from being set
tied, and it is probable that an equal
number of authorities might be cited on
either side Then before we give it a